Kinetically Determined Crystal Structures of Undoped and La3+

Dec 12, 2008 - Department of Chemistry, the UniVersity of Victoria, P.O. Box 3065, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada,. V8W 3V6, and Department of Ear...
0 downloads 0 Views 2MB Size
Download PDF
472

J. Phys. Chem. C 2009, 113, 472–478

Kinetically Determined Crystal Structures of Undoped and La3+-Doped LnF3 Cunhai Dong,† Mati Raudsepp,‡ and Frank C. J. M. van Veggel*,† Department of Chemistry, the UniVersity of Victoria, P.O. Box 3065, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, V8W 3V6, and Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences, the UniVersity of British Columbia, VancouVer, British Columbia, Canada, V6T 1Z4 ReceiVed: October 30, 2008; ReVised Manuscript ReceiVed: NoVember 7, 2008

A series of lanthanide fluoride nanoparticles were prepared with a simple colloidal approach at 75 °C. All the nanoparticles are highly water-dispersible with sizes in the range of 3-10 nm. The light lanthanide fluoride salts, LaF3, CeF3, and NdF3, have the same trigonal crystal structure as the corresponding bulk materials. However, for the fluoride salts of the heavy Dy, Ho, Er, and Yb, nonstoichiometric cubic structures of NaxLnyFz composition were identified. Particularly, the middle GdF3 and EuF3 nanoparticles have both trigonal and orthorhombic crystal phases instead of a single orthorhombic phase as for the corresponding bulk materials, which is attributed to kinetically formed products. Study of La3+-doped GdF3 nanoparticles showed that 15% La3+ doping is sufficient for GdF3 nanoparticles to crystallize completely in the trigonal phase, i.e., the same as LaF3, which is dramatically different than 50% La3+ doping for the bulk. Finally, on the basis of the thermodynamic cycle for the preparation of the doped materials, calculations carried out explain well the published experimental results for the bulk. However, this approach failed to explain the results of the nanoparticles. Evidence is provided that the formation of kinetic products is responsible. Introduction Nanoparticles of lanthanide salts are increasingly being used in many applications such as biolabels, lasers, optical amplifiers, and optical-display phosphors,1-5 because of their photostability and nonoverlapping, relatively sharp emission and excitation peaks. By virtue of unpaired 4f-electrons, lanthanide nanoparticles also find application as contrast agents in magnetic resonance imaging. One advantage is that, in one nanoparticle, there are thousands of paramagnetic ions, such as Gd3+, which is much more concentrated than Gd3+ complexes, giving rise to very high proton relaxivities.6 There are a few different types of nanoparticles of lanthanide salts reported in the literature. A series of lanthanide phosphate nanoparticles that are dispersible in organic solvent have been synthesized using a hydrothermal approach.7,8 Some lanthanide oxide nanoparticles, such as Nd2O3,9 Eu2O3,10,11 Gd2O3,10,12 Tb2O3,13 and Y2O3,10 have also been synthesized using the hydrothermal and polyol approach. However, lanthanide fluoride nanoparticles are receiving more attention because of their low phonon energy, and thus minimum quenching of emissive Ln3+ ions, leading to suitable host materials for many optical applications. A few procedures, such as hydrothermal treatment,14-16 thermolysis,17 and microemulsion18,19 have been used to synthesize lanthanide fluoride nanoparticles. However, the resulting nanoparticles are only dispersible in organic solvent and some syntheses require temperatures higher than 200 °C. A few syntheses have been presented to make water-dispersible nanoparticles with polyol,20 chitosan21 as stabilizer and even without using any ligand.22 Our group has developed waterdispersible nanoparticles using citrate and a phosphate ester by an arrested precipitation of dissolved Ln3+ and F-.23-25 Most of them are focused on lanthanum fluoride. * Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]. † University of Victoria. ‡ University of British Columbia.

In the lanthanide field, doping with emissive Ln3+ is very common, because the whole series of lanthanides have similar chemical properties, and evidence has been provided that Eu3+ ions distribute evenly in the matrix.26,27 It is normally observed that the crystal structure of the matrix is the same with and without doping. One study of the bulk LaxGd1-xF3 system (x ) 0-1) has shown that LaxGd1-xF3 has the LaF3 trigonal phase with x g 0.5, the GdF3 orthorhombic phase with x e 0.25, and both trigonal and orthorhombic phases with 0.25 < x < 0.5, indicative of the possibility of the tuning of crystal structure by the doping of another lanthanide ion.28 In this article, we present a series of highly dispersible lanthanide fluoride nanopartices synthesized in aqueous systems at 75 °C. We show that GdF3 and EuF3 nanoparticles synthesized with this method are kinetic products. We study the effect of dopant on the crystal structure of nanoparticles and show a very different doping level for our kinetically formed GdF3 nanoparticles from bulk materials to change to the LaF3 trigonal structure. Finally, we calculate lattice energies of all the lanthanides fluorides and set up a thermodynamic cycle to evaluate the effect of the dopant on the crystal structure. Experimental Section Synthesis of Nanoparticles. The lanthanide nitrate salts were purchased from Aldrich in the highest purity available (at least 99.9%). The used ammonium hydroxide was an aqueous solution with a concentration of 28.0-30.0 wt %. All the chemicals were used as received without further purification. Citrate-stabilized nanoparticles and 2-aminoethyl dihydrogen phosphate stabilized nanoparticles were prepared following a procedure similar to previous work.6 2-Aminoethyl dihydrogen phosphate is abbreviated as AEP. The stated lanthanide doping levels in percent are atomic percentages relative to the total amount of lanthanide ions. Synthesis of Citrate-Stabilized Nanoparticles. The solution of 2 g of citric acid in 35 mL of distilled water was adjusted

10.1021/jp8096154 CCC: $40.75  2009 American Chemical Society Published on Web 12/12/2008

Crystal Structures of Undoped and La3+-Doped LnF3 with ammonium hydroxide to pH 5-6 and heated to 75 °C followed by the dropwise addition of the solution of 1.33 mmol of Ln(NO3)3 (Ln ) La, Ce, Nd, Eu, Gd, Dy, Ho, Er, and Yb) in 2 mL of distilled water and the solution of 0.126 g of NaF (3 mmol) in 4 mL of distilled water consecutively. After stirring for 1 h, the nanoparticles were precipitated with ca. 50 mL of absolute ethanol and isolated with centrifugation at 4000 rpm for 3 min. The supernatant was poured off, followed by washing the residual with 15-20 mL of absolute ethanol and then isolation with centrifugation. This washing process was repeated three times. The final purified nanoparticles were dried under vacuum. All the nanoparticles are highly water-dispersible (50 mg of nanoparticles can be dispersed in 1 mL of water to get clear dispersions like water). Synthesis of AEP-Stabilized GdF3 Nanoparticles with La3+ Doping. The solution of 0.14 g of AEP in 25 mL of distilled water was adjusted with ammonium hydroxide to pH 5-6 followed by the addition of 0.126 g (3 mmol) of NaF. The solution was heated to 75 °C followed by the dropwise addition of the solution of Gd(NO3)3 and La(NO3)3 (a total of 1.33 mmol with the doping levels relative to the total in atomic percentage) at the designated ratio in 2 mL of distilled water. After stirring for 1 h, the nanoparticles were precipitated with ca. 100 mL of acetone and isolated with centrifugation. The supernatant was poured off, followed by washing the residual with 15-20 mL of absolute ethanol and then isolation with centrifugation. This washing process was repeated three times. The final purified nanoparticles were dried under vacuum. All the nanoparticles are highly water-dispersible (50 mg of nanoparticles can be dispersed in 1 mL of water to get clear dispersions like water). Synthesis of the Submicrometer-Sized GdF3 Particles. The solution of 0.6 g of Gd(NO3)3 (1.33 mmol) in 35 mL of distilled water was heated to 75 °C followed by the dropwise addition of 0.126 g of NaF (3 mmol) in 3 mL of distilled water. After stirring for 1 h, the product was separated with centrifugation. The supernatant was poured off, followed by washing the residual with 15-20 mL of distilled water and isolation by centrifugation. This washing process was repeated three times. The final purified particles were dried under vacuum. Characterization of Particles. Powder X-ray Diffraction. Approximately 40-50 mg of a sample was gently stirred in an alumina mortar to break up lumps. The powder was smeared onto a zero-diffraction quartz plate using ethanol. Step-scan X-ray powder diffraction data were collected over the 2θ range of 3-80° on a Siemens D5000 Bragg-Brentano θ-2θ diffractometer equipped with an Fe monochromator foil, 0.6 mm (0.3°) divergence slit, incident- and diffracted-beam Soller slits, and a VÅNTEC-1 strip detector. The long fine-focus Co X-ray tube was operated at 35 kV and 40 mA, using a takeoff angle of 6°. This instrument was used to collect patterns in Figures 2, 3, and 6. Patterns in Figures 1 and 8 were measured with Cr (30 kV, 15 mA) radiation on a Rigaku Miniflex diffractometer using a zero-background holder with variable divergence slit, 4.2° scattering slit, and 0.3 mm receiving slit. The scanning step size is 0.02° 2θ with a counting time of 6 s per step over the 2θ range of 20-100°. Transmission Electron Microscopy. High-resolution transmission electron microscopy (HR-TEM) and transmission electron microscopy (TEM) were done with a Tecnai G2 field emission scanning transmission electron microscope operated at 200 kV. The nanoparticle dispersion was drop-cast onto a carbon grid and allowed to dry in air at room temperature. The carbon grid with samples on it was then mounted into the vacuum sample chamber for imaging.

J. Phys. Chem. C, Vol. 113, No. 1, 2009 473

Figure 1. XRD patterns of the series of lanthanide fluoride nanoparticles.

Figure 2. Rietveld refinement of the X-ray diffraction pattern of nonstoichiometric sodium dysprosium fluoride and (b) nonstoichiometric sodium ytterbium fluoride: (a) top black line, observed pattern; (b) top red solid line through the observed line, calculated pattern; (c and d) solid lines below the pattern, background-subtracted calculated pattern; (e) solid black line at the bottom, difference curve; (f) vertical bars at the bottom, positions of all the Bragg reflections (two extraneous peaks on the left, attributed to surface ligand).

Atomic Force Microscopy. Atomic force microscopy (AFM) was done using a thermomicroscopy explorer in the contact mode. The nanoparticle dispersion was drop-cast onto the freshly cleaved mica substrate, dried in the air, and mounted onto the sample holder for scanning. Scanning Probe Image Processor software (version 4.4.3.0) was used to determine the mean size and size distribution of particles. Typically, the AFM image was flattened using plane correction with global correction by polynomial fit and linewise correction by LMS fit at polynomial degree 3. The nanoparticles were then separated from the substrate by applying “filter outlier” with a detection level of 80%. On the filtered outliers, i.e., nanoparticles, grain analysis was done using threshold segmentation as the detection method to get the size and the size distribution. Energy-DispersiWe X-ray Spectroscopy. Energy-dispersive X-ray (EDX) spectroscopy was done using a Hitachi S-3500N scanning electron microscope, operated at 20 kV and a resolution of 102 eV. Dry powdered samples were attached to the substrate using a double-sided carbon tape and mounted onto the sample holder. Three measurements were done to calculate the average and the standard deviation.

474 J. Phys. Chem. C, Vol. 113, No. 1, 2009

Dong et al.

Figure 3. Rietveld refinement of the X-ray diffraction pattern of nonstoichiometric sodium ytterbium fluoride: (a) top black line, observed pattern; (b) top red solid line through the observed line, calculated pattern; (c) solid purple line below the pattern, backgroundsubtracted calculated pattern; (d) solid black line at the bottom, difference curve; (e) vertical bars at the bottom, positions of all the Bragg reflections.

Results and Discussion LnF3 Nanoparticles. In the thermodynamically stable bulk LnF3 materials, due to the decrease of the ionic radius of lanthanide, LnF3 with Ln from La to Pm crystallizes at room temperature in the trigonal tysonite P3jc1 space group, whereas LnF3 with Ln from Sm to Lu crystallizes in the orthorhombic Pnma space group.29 In this article, a series of lanthanide fluoride nanoparticles (Ln ) La, Ce, Nd, Eu, Gd, Dy, Ho, Er, and Yb) were synthesized using the same procedure, which are all highly water-dispersible because of the citrate molecules on the surface of the nanoparticles. X-ray diffraction (XRD) measurements were performed, and three different patterns were identified (Figure 1). LaF3, CeF3, and NdF3 nanoparticles have the same trigonal crystal structure as the corresponding bulk materials with broadened peaks due to the nanometer size of the particles (see also Supporting Information Figure S1). A slight peak shift can be observed from La to Nd due to the decrease of ionic radius.30 XRD patterns of GdF3 and EuF3 nanoparticles display severely broadened features, which will be discussed in detail below. However, for Dy, Ho, Er, and Yb, the lanthanide trifluoride phase was not formed. Instead, nonstoichiometric cubic structures of NaxLnyFz composition were identified. For example, in the case of Dy, DyF3 and stoichiometric NaDyF4 do not fit at all (Supporting Information Figure S2). However, Na0.395Dy0.605F2.21 with two cubic lattice parameters of 5.8022 and 5.6299 Å in the space group Fm3jm fits well (Figure 2). Similarly, Na0.446Yb0.554F2.108 fits well for Yb (Figure 3). Again the broadened peaks are due to the nanometer size of the particles. High-resolution transmission electron microscopy images show sizes in the range of 3-10 nm with clear lattice fringes, indicative of the crystallinity of the lanthanide fluoride nanoparticles (Figure 4). In particular, GdF3 and EuF3 nanoparticles are also crystalline although their diffraction patterns display severely broadened features. Hence, these broad features of the nanoparticles cannot be due to an amorphous phase. In addition, we do not see any obvious lattice stacking faults and distortions of surface atoms in the HR-TEM images (Figure 4b), which was given as a reason for the unidentifiable diffractograms of EuPO4 to HoPO4.7 The authors argued that the spatial arrangement of surface atoms of the nanoparticles is distorted from the standard crystal sites due to the stabilizing ligand, which,

Figure 4. HR-TEM images of LaF3 (a), GdF3 (b), and Na0.446Yb0.554F2.108 (c) nanoparticles.

along with the lattice faults, causes the unidentifiable XRD patterns. Unfortunately, HR-TEM failed to provide supporting evidence. This reason is clearly not responsible in our case. In

Crystal Structures of Undoped and La3+-Doped LnF3

Figure 5. XRD patterns of GdF3 nanoparticles stabilized with AEP and citrate.

Figure 6. Rietveld refinement of the XRD pattern of the submicrometer-sized GdF3 particles: (a) blue line, observed pattern; (b) red solid line through the observed line, calculated pattern; (c and d) purple and green solid lines below the pattern, background-subtracted calculated pattern; (e) solid black line at the bottom, difference curve; (f) vertical bars at the bottom, positions of all the Bragg reflections.

order to investigate the effect of the surface ligand on the crystal structure in more detail, a different surface ligand, i.e., AEP, was also used to make GdF3 nanoparticle. XRD shows that AEPstabilized GdF3 nanoparticles have an identical pattern to the citrate-stabilized GdF3 nanoparticles (Figure 5). Therefore, the surface ligands are not responsible for the highly broadened features in the XRD patterns of GdF3 nanoparticles. GdF3 nanoparticles with a single orthorhombic phase have been reported by Fan et al.31 These GdF3 nanoparticles were made by carrying out the reaction in ethanol, where Gd3+ and F- have much lower solubility than in water. Thus, the reaction rate in ethanol was reduced because of the fact that the concentrations of Gd3+ and F- are lower than in water. The growth of nanoparticles was thus slowed down, and as a result these GdF3 nanoparticles have the thermodynamically stable orthorhombic phase. In our case, reactions were performed in aqueous solutions, and thus the reaction rate was very fast. Therefore, GdF3 (and EuF3) could crystallize kinetically into both the trigonal and the orthorhombic phase. This is not too surprising because GdF3 is in the transition region from the trigonal to the orthorhombic phase, and the lattice energies of the two phases of GdF3 are very close, 5122 kJ/mol for the

J. Phys. Chem. C, Vol. 113, No. 1, 2009 475 orthorhombic phase and 5108 kJ/mol for the trigonal phase, respectively (see the Supporting Information for details). In order to test this, submicrometer-sized GdF3 particles with the size of 0.65 ( 0.20 µm, as determined by AFM, were synthesized without using any stabilizing ligands so that the crystal phase can be identified by XRD without much line broadening. Supporting Information Figure S3 shows the corresponding image and the calculated histogram. Examination of the diffraction pattern of these submicrometer-sized GdF3 particles showed both trigonal and orthorhombic phases with a ratio of 40/60 (Figure 6). These results strongly suggest that GdF3 particles were indeed formed kinetically. To confirm this, these submicrometer-sized GdF3 particles were baked in air at 300 °C for 24 h. Only a single orthorhombic phase was found in the XRD pattern (Supporting Information Figure S4), indicating that the kinetically formed particles had been transformed into the thermodynamically most stable phase. It can thus be concluded that GdF3 nanoparticles synthesized by our colloidal procedure are kinetic products with both trigonal and orthorhombic phases. These two phases, along with the line broadening resulting from the nanometer size, make the diffraction lines of GdF3 nanoparticles severely broadened and, consequently, hard to identify. La3+-Doped GdF3 Nanoparticles. In order to investigate the effect of dopant on the crystal structure at the nanometer scale, a series of AEP-stabilized GdF3 nanoparticles were prepared with La3+ doping levels of 5%, 10%, 15%, and 20%, respectively, which were confirmed by EDX spectroscopy to be actually 5.7% ( 0.4%, 10.2% ( 0.3%, 15.4% ( 0.2%, and 20.4% ( 0.6%, respectively. These nanoparticles are also highly water-dispersible with their sizes in the range of 3-10 nm albeit with some agglomerations (Figure 7). The XRD patterns show that with 15% and 20% doping, GdF3 nanoparticles crystallize in the LaF3 trigonal phase, whereas with 5% and 10% La3+ doping, the crystal structure remains the same as the undoped GdF3 nanoparticles (Figure 8). This is markedly different from the bulk in which 50% La3+ is needed to obtain the trigonal phase. Note the very obvious shift of the diffraction peaks upon the comparison of the XRD pattern of LaF3 nanoparticles with that of 20% (or 15%) La3+-doped GdF3 nanoparticles despite the same crystal phase. This is because of the larger ionic radius of La3+ compared to that of Gd3+. The kinetically trapped crystal structure in a mixture of two LnF3 salts has been observed before,32 but the change in the crystal structure by changing the doping level has not as far as we know. Furthermore, we are not aware of work that shows the transition from one crystal structure to another as a function of the doping level that is significantly different from the bulk. Theoretical Calculations. In order to do a theoretical calculation for the tuning of the crystal structure, the lattice energies of the lanthanide fluorides were first calculated using the Born-Haber cycle (see the Supporting Information for details). Figure 9 shows that lattice energies of lanthanide fluorides increase as the constituent Ln3+ varies from La to Lu. This change is consistent with the lanthanide contraction. The attraction between Ln3+ and F- increases as the ionic radius of Ln3+ decreases, decreasing the length of the Ln3+-F- bond. As shown in Figure 10a, a thermodynamic cycle is established to calculate the Gibbs free energies of the reactions of the preparation of La3+-doped GdF3. The standard hydration energies of lanthanide ions and fluoride are available in the literature, and the entropy changes can easily be calculated based on the standard entropies (see the Supporting Information for details). To determine the crystal phase of the doped materials on the

476 J. Phys. Chem. C, Vol. 113, No. 1, 2009

Dong et al.

Figure 7. TEM images of GdF3 with La3+ doping of (a) 5%, (b) 10%, (c) 15%, and (d) 20%.

Figure 8. XRD patterns of GdF3 nanoparticles with different La doping levels. (Patterns of LaF3 and GdF3 have been added for comparison.)

basis of the standard Gibbs free energy, the lattice energies of the doped materials for both phases were also calculated in the Supporting Information. Thus, the standard Gibbs free energies of the reactions of the preparation of La3+-doped GdF3 were

Figure 9. Plot of the lattice energies of lanthanide fluorides as a function of lanthanide ions. (Information for PmF3 is not available because Pm is not naturally occurring and available Pm is from nuclear reactions.)

calculated and plotted as a function of doping level for both trigonal and orthorhombic phases (Figure 10b). Around the cross point of 60% La3+ doping, both phases would be present because their free energies are close to each other. Otherwise, depending on which phase has the more negative free energy, the doped materials can have either a trigonal or orthorhombic phase. For

Crystal Structures of Undoped and La3+-Doped LnF3

J. Phys. Chem. C, Vol. 113, No. 1, 2009 477

0 Figure 10. (a) Thermodynamic cycle of the reactions of La3+-doped GdF3 and (b) plot of ∆Greac as a function of doping level.

example, with 10% La3+ doping, GdF3 would take the orthorhombic phase because the standard Gibbs free energy of the formation of the orthorhombic phase is more negative than that of the trigonal phase. This agrees fairly well with the published study of the bulk in which LaxGd1-xF3 has the LaF3 trigonal phase with x g 0.5, the GdF3 orthorhombic phase with x e 0.25, and both trigonal and orthorhombic phases with 0.25 < x < 0.5.28 Note that these bulk LaxGd1-xF3 samples were prepared from melts, not from solutions. The above calculations explain the La3+-doped bulk GdF3 very well. However, in order to obtain the trigonal phase, the doping level of La3+ changes from 50% for the bulk to 15% for the nanoparticles. This could in principle be happening for thermodynamic or kinetic reasons. In terms of thermodynamics, there are of course two factors that should be considered for nanoparticles, entropy and enthalpy. Entropy increases due to the doping and due to size changes from bulk to nanoparticles. However, these entropy increases are the same for both phases because these two phases have the same chemical composition and similar sizes for a certain doping level. For the same reason, other factors of the entropy, such as solvation of Ln3+, citrate-Ln3+ interaction,33 and citrate-nanoparticle interaction are also the same (or at least assumed very similar) for the two phases. Hence, the effect of entropy on Gibbs free energy will be of the same magnitude. Therefore, entropy changes will not move significantly the cross point in Figure 10b. As for the enthalpy, since the hydration energies remain the same, one possible factor in the whole thermodynamic cycle that changes could be the lattice energy. The lattice energy could be changed due to the lattice contraction arisen from the large surface area of nanoparticles and thus surface compression.34,35 The lattice contraction in the nanoparticles, if there is any, should be manifested by a change in the unit cell volume. However, our previous study did not see any significant change in the unit cell volume.27 Hence, there is no significant change in the lattice energy from bulk to nanoparticles. Even if there is any change in the lattice energy, it should be of the same magnitude for the two phases due to the same chemical composition and the same expected compressibility. Hence, the lattice energy is not a discriminating factor either. Another factor associated with the enthalpy that we should consider is surface free energy of the nanoparticles. However, because our nanoparticles have nearly spherical shape, surface free energies of different facets of nanoparticles should be very similar. In addition, their chemical compositions are identical and their sizes are nearly the same. Hence, the surface free energies should be of the same order of magnitude. Thus, the surface energy will not move

significantly the cross point either. In this analysis we have neglected the nonideal behavior of the solvated ions, as can be calculated from the Debye-Hu¨ckel theory, because the effect would be the same for both crystal phases. In other words, it would simply move both lines in Figure 10b along the Y-axis by the same amount. It is tempting to assume that this explains the small discrepancy between the calculated and experimental results. Therefore, we conclude that thermodynamics is not the reason for the change of La3+ doping level from 50% for the bulk to 15% for the nanoparticles to obtain the LaF3 trigonal phase. Since thermodynamics is not the reason, it must be due to kinetics. The kinetically formed GdF3 nanoparticles, as discussed above, have both trigonal and orthorhombic phases instead of a single orthorhombic phase as for the thermodynamically stable bulk GdF3. Because a fraction of the undoped GdF3 nanoparticles already has the trigonal phase, a minimum La3+ doping should be sufficient to tip the balance even more to the trigonal phase. A doping level of 15% La3+ is apparently able to change the crystal structure of all the GdF3 nanoparticles to the trigonal phase, much different from the 50% needed for the bulk. Conclusions A series of highly water-dispersible lanthanide fluoride nanoparticles were synthesized using a simple colloidal approach at 75 °C. LaF3, CeF3, and NdF3 have the same trigonal crystal phase as the corresponding bulk materials. However, the late lanthanides, such as Dy, Ho, Er, and Yb, did not form lanthanide trifluoride. Instead, nonstoichiometric cubic phases of NaxLnyFz composition were identified. Particularly, the middle GdF3 and EuF3 are kinetic products with both trigonal and orthorhombic phases. Finally, on the basis of a thermodynamic cycle, calculations explain the tuning of the crystal structure of the bulk GdF3 by La3+ doping very well. In contrast, for GdF3 nanoparticles, a much lower doping level was apparently sufficient to obtain the trigonal phase for kinetic reasons. Acknowledgment. We gratefully acknowledge the generous funding from the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council (NSERC), the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI), and the British Columbia Knowledge Development Fund (BCKDF) of Canada. Supporting Information Available: XRD patterns of LaF3, CeF3, NdF3, DyF3, and NaDyF4 with their bulk Bragg reflections (in stick form), AFM image of submicrometer-sized GaF3, XRD

478 J. Phys. Chem. C, Vol. 113, No. 1, 2009 pattern of baked submicrometer-sized GaF3, and detailed calculations for the free energies of the formation of doped nanoparticles. This material is available free of charge via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org. References and Notes (1) Tissue, B. M. Chem. Mater. 1998, 10, 2837–2845. (2) Chen, Z. G.; Chen, H. L.; Hu, H.; Yu, M. X.; Li, F. Y.; Zhang, Q.; Zhou, Z. G.; Yi, T.; Huang, C. H. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2008, 130, 3023– 3029. (3) Chatteriee, D. K.; Rufalhah, A. J.; Zhang, Y. Biomaterials 2008, 29, 937–943. (4) Diamente, P. R.; Raudsepp, M.; van Veggel, F. C. J. M. AdV. Funct. Mater. 2007, 17, 363–368. (5) Sivakumar, S.; Diamente, P. R.; van Veggel, F. C. J. M. Chem. Eur. J. 2006, 12, 5878–5884. (6) Evanics, F.; Diamente, P. R.; van Veggel, F. C. J. M.; Stanisz, G. J.; Prosser, R. S. Chem. Mater. 2006, 18, 2499–2505. (7) Lehmann, O.; Meyssamy, H.; Kompe, K.; Schnablegger, H.; Haase, M. J. Phys. Chem. B 2003, 107, 7449–7453. (8) Yan, R. X.; Sun, X. M.; Wang, X.; Peng, Q.; Li, Y. D. Chem. Eur. J. 2005, 11, 2183–2195. (9) Bazzi, R.; Brenier, A.; Perriat, P.; Tillement, O. J. Lumin. 2005, 113, 161–167. (10) Bazzi, R.; Flores, M. A.; Louis, C.; Lebbou, K.; Zhang, W.; Dujardin, C.; Roux, S.; Mercier, B.; Ledoux, G.; Bernstein, E.; Perriat, P.; Tillement, O. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2004, 273, 191–197. (11) Wakefield, G.; Keron, H. A.; Dobson, P. J.; Hutchison, J. L. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 1999, 215, 179–182. (12) Bridot, J. L.; Faure, A. C.; Laurent, S.; Riviere, C.; Billotey, C.; Hiba, B.; Janier, M.; Josserand, V.; Coll, J. L.; Vander Elst, L.; Muller, R.; Roux, S.; Perriat, P.; Tillement, O. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2007, 129, 5076– 5084. (13) Wakefield, G.; Keron, H. A.; Dobson, P. J.; Hutchison, J. L. J. Phys. Chem. Solids 1999, 60, 503–508. (14) Wang, X.; Zhuang, J.; Peng, Q.; Li, Y. D. Nature 2005, 437, 121– 124. (15) Lezhnina, M. M.; Justel, T.; Katker, H.; Wiechert, D. U.; Kynast, U. H. AdV. Funct. Mater. 2006, 16, 935–942.

Dong et al. (16) Wang, X.; Zhuang, J.; Peng, Q.; Li, Y. D. Inorg. Chem. 2006, 45, 6661–6665. (17) Sun, X.; Zhang, Y. W.; Du, Y. P.; Yan, Z. G.; Si, R.; You, L. P.; Yan, C. H. Chem. Eur. J. 2007, 13, 2320–2332. (18) Lemyre, J. L.; Ritcey, A. M. Chem. Mater. 2005, 17, 3040–3043. (19) Zhang, H.; Li, H. F.; Li, D. Q.; Meng, S. L. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2006, 302, 509–515. (20) Wei, Y.; Lu, F. Q.; Zhang, X. R.; Chen, D. P. Mater. Lett. 2007, 61, 1337–1340. (21) Wang, F.; Zhang, Y.; Fan, X. P.; Wang, M. Q. Nanotechnology 2006, 17, 1527–1532. (22) Wang, F.; Zhang, Y.; Fan, X. P.; Wang, M. Q. J. Mater. Chem. 2006, 16, 1031–1034. (23) Sivakumar, S.; van Veggel, F. C. J. M.; Raudsepp, M. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2005, 127, 12464–12465. (24) Diamente, P. R.; van Veggel, F. C. J. M. J. Fluoresc. 2005, 15, 543–551. (25) Diamente, P. R.; Burke, R. D.; van Veggel, F. C. J. M. Langmuir 2006, 22, 1782–1788. (26) Lo, A. Y. H.; Sudarsan, V.; Sivakumar, S.; van Veggel, F. C. J. M.; Schurko, R. W. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2007, 129, 4687–4700. (27) Sudarsan, V.; van Veggel, F. C. J. M.; Herring, R. A.; Raudsepp, M. J. Mater. Chem. 2005, 15, 1332–1342. (28) Brixner, L. H.; Crawford, M. K.; Hyatt, G.; Carnall, W. T.; Blasse, G. J. Electrochem. Soc. 1991, 138, 313–317. (29) Handbook on the Physics and Chemistry of Rare Earths; Elsevier North-Holland: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1982; Vol. 5. (30) Lide, D. R. Handbook of Chemistry and Physics; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, 1996. (31) Fan, X. P.; Pi, D. B.; Wang, F.; Qiu, J. R.; Wang, M. Q. IEEE Trans. Nanotechnol. 2006, 5, 123–128. (32) Kumar, G. A.; Riman, R.; Snitzer, E.; Ballato, J. J. Appl. Phys. 2004, 95, 40–47. (33) Moeller, T.; Martin, D. F.; Thompson, L. C.; Ferru¨s, R.; Feistel, G. R.; Randall, W. J. Chem. ReV. 1965, 65, 1–50. (34) Mays, C. W.; Vermaak, J. S.; Kuhlmann, D. Surf. Sci. 1968, 12, 134–140. (35) Vermaak, J. S.; Mays, C. W.; Kuhlmann, D. Surf. Sci. 1968, 12, 128–133.

JP8096154